With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:

Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
x=2x
If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.

This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.

Zero means 'NO NUMBER':

https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
>
> Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> x=2x
> If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
>
> This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
>
> Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
>
> https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_

Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner

However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it

Bassam Karzeddin 🔊

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, by "unexpected result" do you mean that the first equation (that is x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x)) was valid for all numbers as x, while the last equation (namely, x=2x) can only be satisfied by having x=zero?

tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:27:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
>
> Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> x=2x
> If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
>
> This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
>
> Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
>
> https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
Are you confused over polynomial roots?

You can't divide away x-x because it's zero. No contradiction here.

On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 16:26:09 UTC-4, jootzr yuip wrote:
> Just to make sure we are all on the same page, by "unexpected result" do you mean that the first equation (that is x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x)) was valid for all numbers as x, while the last equation (namely, x=2x) can only be satisfied by having x=zero?

In actuality, it is what I would call an equation devoid of practical value.. It is also proof that division and multiplication do not apply to non-number objects such as zero.

x=2x is invalid because the multiplication and division by zero effectively killed the equation when the expression factor x-x was introduced. In any case, how useful is x^2 - x^2 ? It has no use whatsoever, but it highlights weaknesses and pitfalls of algebra which sacrifices precision for generality.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)

<=>

> x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)

Ok.

> x=2x (***)

Nope.

Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies

> If we were to accept this result uncritically ...

But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)

> This serves as a testament

that math is not your thing.

On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 23:34:57 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)
>
> <=>
>
> > x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)
>
> Ok.
>
> > x=2x (***)
>
> Nope.
>
> Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
> Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies
>
> > If we were to accept this result uncritically ...
>
> But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)
> > This serves as a testament
> that math is not your thing.

Try not to be a troll and a crank, and when you quote others, DO NOT quote them out of context, you vile bastard!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the source: https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
(Page 50)

A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example: Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 = (x-x)(x+x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:

x(x-x)=(x+x)(x-x)
x = 2x

If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try again, you fucking idiot! This time avoid straw man arguments and read to understand, you dipstick!!

On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 07:46:21 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 23:34:57 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 6:27:00 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >
> > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x) (*)
> >
> > <=>
> >
> > > x (x-x) = (x+x)(x-x) (**)
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > x=2x (***)
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Since x - x = 0 for all x e IR you committed the error "dividing by 0" when transforming equation (**) into (***).
> > Such an "operation" is not allowed in math (for good reasons, as anyone except you can see).
> >
> > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies
> >
> > > If we were to accept this result uncritically ...
> >
> > But WE don't /accept this result/. (See comment above.)
> > > This serves as a testament
> > that math is not your thing.
> Try not to be a troll and a crank, and when you quote others, DO NOT quote them out of context, you vile bastard!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From the source: https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
> (Page 50)
>
> A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example: Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 = (x-x)(x+x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> x(x-x)=(x+x)(x-x)
> x = 2x
>
> If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Try again, you fucking idiot! This time avoid straw man arguments and read to understand, you dipstick!!

What the above example shows is that ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER, does not have the same properties which ALL true numbers have and does not conform to arithmetic operations to which all well-formed numbers do conform.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:46:21 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta (always full of shit) wrote:

complete nonsense.

EOD

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:48:33 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta (my dick is always saggy) wrote: [...]

> What the above example shows is

that math is not your thing.

EOD

onsdag 9 augusti 2023 kl. 02:40:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 16:26:09 UTC-4, jootzr yuip wrote:
> > Just to make sure we are all on the same page, by "unexpected result" do you mean that the first equation (that is x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x)) was valid for all numbers as x, while the last equation (namely, x=2x) can only be satisfied by having x=zero?
> In actuality, it is what I would call an equation devoid of practical value. It is also proof that division and multiplication do not apply to non-number objects such as zero.
>
> x=2x is invalid because the multiplication and division by zero effectively killed the equation when the expression factor x-x was introduced. In any case, how useful is x^2 - x^2 ? It has no use whatsoever, but it highlights weaknesses and pitfalls of algebra which sacrifices precision for generality.
An equation can't be "killed". What you mean is that the solution space to x²-x²=0 and x-2x=0 are different.

The set {x : x²-x²=0} is all real numbers, but {x : x-2x=0} = {0}.

Not so operations needs to preserve solution spaces.

What you have observed is that {x : f(x)=0} and {x : g(f(x))=0} in general are different sets. This is a trivial observation.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
<Drivel>

No response? Chuckle.

<PLONK>

onsdag 9 augusti 2023 kl. 22:27:11 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> <Drivel>
>
> No response? Chuckle.
>
> <PLONK>
Response to what?

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 11:34:57 PM UTC+2, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 9 augusti 2023 kl. 22:27:11 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> >
> > <Drivel>
> >
> > No response? Chuckle.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> >
> Response to what?

To his non-responsive nonsense it seems.

On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 12:27:00 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
>
> Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> x=2x
> If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
>
> This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
>
> Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
>
> https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_

Swine post comments that are straw arguments and then wonder why they get beaten down... tsk, tsk.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> >
> > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > x=2x
> > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> >
> > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> >
> > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
>
> However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
>
> Bassam Karzeddin 🔊

Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!

Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)

A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE

BKK

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > >
> > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > x=2x
> > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > >
> > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > >
> > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> >
> > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> >
> > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
>
> Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
>
> A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
>
> BKK
About

This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions

And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:

0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)

0*n = 0, ..., etc

Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️

What an old nonsense is Zero

But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE

BKK

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > >
> > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > x=2x
> > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > >
> > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > >
> > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > >
> > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > >
> > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> >
> > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> >
> > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> >
> > BKK
> About
>
>
> This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
>
> And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
>
> 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
>
> 0*n = 0, ..., etc
>
> Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
>
> What an old nonsense is Zero
>
> But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
>
> BKK

See the rules of infinity ♾️!

♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)

♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
.....
.....
etc
What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!

I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
Bkk

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> <Drivel>
>
> No response? Chuckle.
>
> <PLONK>

He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > <Drivel>
> >
> > No response? Chuckle.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.
SHUT UP, you absolute moron. You are nothing but an insignificant worm and I squash your pathetic objections like I do an annoying worm under my shoe. I piss and shit in your MOUTH, you fucking useless asshole!

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > <Drivel>
> >
> > No response? Chuckle.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.

Stupid little fuck with 12 subscribers?

https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about

What kind of retard calls his YT channel Mathin3D ??? LMFAO.

Do you think that others reading these comments won't find out who you are, you cowardly little shit? No one is ever anonymous.

And if I were a retard, what does that say of you, you fucking retarded little fag? Oh, yes, they'll say, it's that stupid little fuck who owns the channel Mathin3d! They will be laughing at you, dumb bastard!!

I would poke both your beady, envious eyes out with a fireplace poker. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by spewing our your mindless drivel. you little fuckwad??? You're wasting your time, idiot!!! I have stretched the anus of every fucking mainstream mathematics professor, and you are, who? Oh, I see, a stupid little fuck whose IQ < 56 ???

Get a job, you Baboon!!!!!

No one pays attention to irrelevant STUPIDS like you!

Okay, so I stretched your asshole. Deal with it, idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are there so many cranks here?
Listen to Gabriel when he has something to say.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 13:02:27 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 11:07:44 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > <Drivel>
> >
> > No response? Chuckle.
> >
> > <PLONK>
> He did respond. Made you look like a ret rd. As always.

Your YouTube channel with 12 subscribers?

https://www.youtube.com/@Mathin3D/about

Who in their right mind names their YT channel Mathin3D? Quite amusing.

Do you believe others won't discover your identity, hiding behind anonymity? No one remains truly anonymous.

And if I were less intelligent, what does that reflect on you? Oh, they'll say, it's that individual with the Mathin3d channel! They'll have a good laugh at your expense!

I'd strongly advise against wasting your time with such mindless comments. What exactly are you hoping to achieve? You're not making any impact. I've engaged with mainstream mathematics professors; who are you, someone with an IQ below 56?

Consider finding meaningful employment instead of resorting to irrelevant provocations.

No one pays attention to inconsequential figures like yourself.

Accept the situation; attempting to provoke me is futile.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > >
> > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > x=2x
> > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > >
> > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > >
> > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > >
> > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > >
> > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > >
> > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > >
> > > BKK
> > About
> >
> >
> > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> >
> > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> >
> > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> >
> > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> >
> > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> >
> > What an old nonsense is Zero
> >
> > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> >
> > BKK
> See the rules of infinity ♾️!
>
> ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
>
> ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> ....
> ....
> etc
> What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
>
>
> I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> Bkk

U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE

BKK

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:15:48 AM UTC-7, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:26:58 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:40:56 AM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:46:45 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:21:14 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7:27:00 PM UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > With the inception of zero, a paradigm shift swept through the corridors of mainstream mathematics, ushering in a necessity to lay down specific guidelines for its application. In its role as a placeholder, zero's significance relies on a precise understanding of its place within mathematical expressions. A casual and indiscriminate employment of zero can engender perplexing outcomes that appear baffling on the surface. To illustrate this, let us delve into the following example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consider the equation x^2 - x^2 =(x+x)(x-x), which in itself appears innocuous. However, upon closer examination, a curious and unexpected outcome emerges:
> > > > > > x (x-x) =(x+x)(x-x)
> > > > > > x=2x
> > > > > > If we were to accept this result uncritically, a cascade of implications could follow. For instance, it could be argued that p=r, where p and r denote any magnitudes or numbers. Yet, this seemingly innocuous scenario holds within it a profound revelation—namely, that division by zero is mathematically absurd. Moreover, it underscores that multiplication by zero similarly leads to conundrums, rendering an equation devoid of practical value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This serves as a testament to the intricate nature of mathematical principles and the criticality of discerning the nuances of zero's involvement in mathematical operations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zero means 'NO NUMBER':
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/94491990/Zero_means_No_Number_
> > > > > Yes of course, zero isn't a number, but an old human mind fiction like the modern fiction of infinity, but in opposite manner
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the main problem of ALL human mathematickers, is indeed, they don't well-understand what is truly a real number, nor do they deliberately want seriously to understand it since it ruins completely their huge endless buissness they have inhereted & widely expand it
> > > > >
> > > > > Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
> > > > Where a real number is only an existing distance, no matter however small or large it is!
> > > >
> > > > Where nither the smallest or the largest distances exist
> > > > So like the positive constructible numbers (wither rationals or the only true irrational numbers, but only & strictly in their surd forms & never by their non-existing expantions)
> > > >
> > > > A missed truth by ALL humans since the Pythagorean era FOR SURE
> > > >
> > > > BKK
> > > About
> > >
> > >
> > > This old human minds fiction numbers like zero, we have introduced the zeroless number systems that mathematicians deny globally I think with only few uneffecive exceptions
> > >
> > > And it is indeed more than nonsense fun with zero like the followings:
> > >
> > > 0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, 0^n = 0, (0/0 = 0^0 = ??)
> > >
> > > 0*n = 0, ..., etc
> > >
> > > Almost like the rules applied for infinity ♾️
> > >
> > > What an old nonsense is Zero
> > >
> > > But the Devils 😈 had made it illegally one of the most important & hollyest worshiped numbers & the clueless sheeples were so happy then, since it gives them milk & bread whenever they like, FOR SURE
> > >
> > > BKK
> > See the rules of infinity ♾️!
> >
> > ♾️ + ♾️ = ♾️, (0 + 0 = 0)
> > n* ♾️ = ♾️, (n*0 = 0)
> > ♾️^n = ♾️, (0^n = 0)
> >
> > ♾️/♾️ = ?, (0/0 = ?)
> > ....
> > ....
> > etc
> > What a nonsense mythmatics could be more thrilling than zero & ♾️ ? No wonders!
> >
> >
> > I Who made mathematics so silly & very stupid like that mathematickers?
> > Bkk
> U C how easy make mathematics can be with trolish human invented fictions like zero & ♾️, FOR SURE
>
> BKK

Zero can't be subtracted from because it is the absence of all quantity.
It's purpose is to set bases.